Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
fiscal challenges that we do need long-term, deficit reduction. that's important for america's credibility, and it's important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced and that means significant revenues, and it has to go around. typically that means the wealthy and well off have to pay their fair share as well. again, these are not new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate. even foreign policy debate. and so we think that the american people are on the side of the president and democrats. that is not to say -- [inaudible] we want to remind everyone that there's already been a trillion dollars, over a trillion dollars in spending cuts. and so that is a significant part of this debate, because it happened last year. but just because washington has a short memory doesn't mean we all should have one. and that there's already been sacrifice on behalf of through those discretionary cuts. we are particularly excited doing a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we talked about medical savings through the programs, address ri
this year in january. at the same time, the deficit for fiscal year 1991 increased in the president's budget summation in february when it was submitted for that year -- yes, sir? >> can i ask you said the sequester order was 31%. >> yes. >> where did it come from? >> did they have a sequestered? >> it grew out of the original holland's 1985 legislation that we adopted it was estimated $100 billion of the end of 1990 had increased nearly $300 billion by the end of 1990 with saddam hussein invading kuwait on august 2nd and the first gulf war. these gentlemen were there. they participated in this long arduous debate. the debate came up to something that is extremely familiar to everyone in this office in this room and that is taxes and spending. more specifically the desire of the president as understand, governor, was to have a capital gains tax cut. but the democrats will only agree the overall rates were increased no such agreement could be reached and democrats retreated on the rate increases while selling for a limitation of tax deductions for higher income. i will give the recollection o
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
years, and he has looked at how they have attempted to reduce their budget deficits. based on i.m.f. data which is international monetary fund, he concluded the tax-based deficit reduction was, in his words, always recessionary, always. by contrast, reducing deficits by cutting spending and enacting pro-growth reforms, including tax reform, actually spurred economic growth, according to his study. i think that's consistent with our own economic history. between 1948 and 1961, a period when the highest income tax rate rose from 82% to 91%, we went through some tough times. we had four recessions. thankfully, our exports that helped rebuild europe after world war ii helped keep the economy moving. reducing the top tax rate to 70% also helped. but the 1970's were still a period of stagnation, recession, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation. it was when ronald reagan reduced rates down to 28% that we saw this impressive period of growth, maybe the most impressive ever. this is something that we saw in 1997 again when capital gains cut under
balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit next week. we can reform our tax code next year. but we must give economic certainty to the middle class now, today. democrats agree, independents agree, and the majority of republicans agree, mr. president, and the american public agrees by a huge margin. even dozens of c.e.o.'s from major corporations whose personal taxes go up under our plan emphatically agree. the only people who aren't on board are republicans in congress. but now even they're crying out for compromise. i only hope my friend, john boehner, is listening. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday afternoon came to the floor and offered president obama's proposal on the fiscal cliff to show t
low for middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national budget deficits. by keeping tax rates low for 98% of americans and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over $250,000 a year, the democratic plan would cut the deficit by as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade. now, that alone doesn't cure our budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution. let's be clear about one thing. the middle-class tax cut act would still benefit high-end taxpayers. families making over $250,000 a year would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. so if a family made $255,000, they'd only see an increase on the top $5,000 and then only to the clinton era rates that were in effect during the 1990's when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. under the senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra 150 bucks in taxes. in opposing the middle-class tax cuts act, republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the to
deficit and debt. so this, this legislation both accomplishes that goal and still provides an increase in diversity which is what the senator from new york was talking about. and then an additional point is the point that the senator from texas so very clearly made. this legislation passed the house. last time i checked, legislation has to pass the senate and the house. that's a pretty important distinction. going back to the comments of the senator from kentucky. he said hey, if we can't do it all at once because of disagreements, let's start getting done what we can get done. so here is a bill that provides us with -- with people who can help our economy grow, people in the sciences and technology fields that we very much need. it will increase diversity just as the senator from new york said, and it's passed the house. common sense says let's go. let's pass the bill. so we very much want to join with the senator from new york and the senator from delaware and the other sponsors that he referred to, but let's join on something that can actually get done, meaning a bill that passes th
that reduced the deficit to avoid the fiscal cliff. we should not put off hard decisions of gimmicks or with triggers. that's what got us here in the first place. it's time to bite the bullet and make the tough decisions and make them now. the first thing we should do is immediately and permanently extend a middle-class tax cut. this will provide needed certainty to america's families and businesses and markets. this decisive action will ensure that millions of american families don't see attacks like of more than $2000 starting next month. in year-end agreement must also have a long-term extension of the debt ceiling. america cannot afford another debilitating to school showdown. it has to be a package deal. then we need to enact a long-term and comprehensive deficit solution. most serious plans recommend about $4 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years to restore fiscal balance. the budget control act banks about 1 billion. bringing our troops home from iraq and afghanistan saves another 800 billion. that's real savings. it should be counted. interest savings provide another 600 b
with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundation. and we have i think the united states, both an opportunity to require it to get our house in order, and i believe that our 100 senators and members of the house will step up on this and sufficient majority in the coming months. >> how do you look at your surplus of the u.s.? does that say we have america under our control? >> we are one of the closest allies of the united states. so of course our position today to united states is very, very decisive, strengthen our relationship. so these are not, there is no intention for us to try to use this kind of economic relationship in different context. so we are very satisfied with the current relationship with the united states. that's all spent let me open up to the fl
. >>> earlier this week former congressional leaders discussed what washington can learn from the 1990 deficit agreement that helped bring the federal budget into surplus. speakers include pete domenici, a former house appropriations committee chair david obey and former house speaker tom foley. congress and the white house in 1990 were facing automatic budget short cuts and large projected deficits. president george h. w. bush in the breaking his taxes pledge in order to get a deal with house and senate democrats. as amihai and paul pos mur the director of the administration program at george mason university and i want to welcome you to the session which we are calling looking back to move forward the 1990 budget summit revisited co-sponsored by george mason university and the bipartisan policy center. it's our pleasure to put this on and recognize with all the frenzy about the fiscal cliff that we have a history and some of that history is successful in resolving the deep seated choices within the budgeting. that is what we are going to look back and talk about today and see whether we can
at a structural deficit that again, expenditure triggered that is now going to put at risk possibly laying off firemen and police but then again, resident obama's profit declaration was much appreciated because that kind of took some of the doubt about whether or not spending money is going to again rebound and boomerang against him but the fact is we can look at that per capita threshold that triggers a higher be imprisoned, putting this package together at the fact is that these communities deserve that. again, they have experienced just a historic repetition of bad weather that is really now starting to hit bone and muscle in terms of their ability to provide basic functions of local government. again, thank you for holding this hearing, and look forward to working with the senate and the house, bipartisan group to get the right response is. >> representative, thank you. as a former member of local government, there's only times you can go to the well. small tax base, especially coming out of recession when receipts are down and then this hits. i think you make an important point. this comm
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14